Reaging: " Why the Saudis are financing the coup in Egypt "

The Saudis have adopted an
uncharacteristic position over the coup in Egypt. King Abdullah was the
first foreign ruler to welcome it and immediately arranged for a $12
billion aid package for the mass murderers to continue their rampage
unencumbered by financial woes.

There is no shortage of commentary on the military coup in Egypt even if
US President Barack Obama refuses to call it by that name. The reason
is clear: it will necessitate cutting off $1.5 billion in annual aid as
stipulated by US law. Since this is a bribe paid to the Egyptian
military to keep it out of the struggle against Zionist Israel,
Washington cannot terminate this aid. For the US, the most important
policy decision is to safeguard the interests of the Zionist State;
principles and even US interests can go down the drain.

But what
explanation is there for the Saudi regime’s strong backing of the
military coup and open support for the slaughter of innocent people in
Egypt? This is quite uncharacteristic of Saudi behaviour; they prefer to
operate quietly behind the scenes. These are, however, unusual times
and the Saudis feel vulnerable, hence their actions that carry serious
risks.

Let us recount what the Saudis have done since the
military coup in Egypt on July 3 that ousted the first-ever elected
President of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi. King ‘Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was
the first foreign ruler to welcome the coup and send a congratulatory
message to ‘Adly Mansour, the military’s front man to head the “interim
regime.” Mansour is a remnant of the Mubarak regime and had served in
his judiciary for 30 years.

Within three days of the coup, the
Saudis, together with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait,
announced an aid package of $12 billion for the military-backed regime.
Given the dire straits of the Egyptian economy, this was a lifeline that
the military was desperately seeking. Egypt may still sink if the
situation continues to deteriorate — and it may — but that is a
different story.

What really exposed the Saudi rulers was the
blunt speech by King ‘Abdullah on August 16. It was delivered against
the backdrop of the Egyptian military’s slaughter of civilians on August
14 and 16. Let us recall who were the people that were so mercilessly
butchered by the military without warning? These people had camped in
the blistering heat of Cairo since the July 3 coup. They stayed outside
the Rabia al-Adawiya Masjid in Nasr City and at al-Nahdah Square in Giza
City throughout the month of Ramadan. They fasted and prayed together
and built solidarity. They were completely peaceful as evident from the
fact that they brought their families including children with them.

It
was the slaughter of these people that the Saudi monarch backed and
financed. He said in his speech of August 16, “Let the entire world know
that the people and government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stood and
still stand today with our brothers in Egypt against terrorism,
extremism and sedition, and against whomever is trying to interfere in
Egypt’s internal affairs.” For the Saudis to interfere in the internal
affairs of Egypt is deemed legitimate and beyond reproach but others
must not even criticize the slaughter of innocents. ‘Abdullah’s words
were aimed at the US and such other regional rivals as Qatar and Turkey.
He accused both of “fanning the fire of sedition and promoting
terrorism, which they claim to be fighting.” While Qatar has been
circumspect in its criticism of the coup since the appointment of Shaykh
Tamim bin Hamad as the new ruler, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan has been blunt. He denounced the coup in no uncertain terms
because he saw his entire policy of dominating the region in alliance
with such rulers as those in Qatar and Egypt (under Mursi) crumbling.

While
Saudi Arabia and Turkey have led the campaign against Bashar al-Asad’s
government in Syria, their divergent positions on developments in Egypt
have once again brought them on a collision course. The Saudi-Turkish
alliance was unnatural; the only thing that brought them together was
their visceral hatred of al-Asad. The Saudis are hardcore Wahhabis whom
the Sufi-inclined Turks detest. The Saudis return the compliment in
equal measure by denouncing the Sufis as deviant. Further, neither side
has forgotten the long Turkish rule over the Muslim East. The Saudis —
and indeed Arabians elsewhere — brood over Turkish rule as being
“foreign” while the Turks have not forgiven the Arabians, especially the
Saudis for betraying the Muslims by aligning themselves with the
British at the beginning of the last century that saw the demise of the
Turkish empire and brought an end to a largely impotent khilafah. It
also facilitated the implantation of the Zionist entity in Palestine.

Erdogan
did not let it rest there. He called on the UN Security Council to meet
after the massacre of Egyptian protesters, and reprimanded Europe for
remaining silent. Turkey, France and Britain then requested a meeting of
the Security Council that met on August 15 but issued a meaningless
statement calling on all sides to “show restraint.” It was evident that
the Americans were not prepared to allow the Council to do more. Even
the Chinese and Russians went along with this charade. Turkey’s appeal
to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) headed by Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, a Turk, fell on equally deaf ears. Turkey’s Deputy Prime
Minister Bekir Bozdag condemned the OIC’s inaction following the
Egyptian army’s brutal crackdown of Brotherhood supporters as
“dishonourable passivity.”

In their meeting in July, Erdogan had
rhetorically asked Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, “How could a
country claiming to uphold Islam and Shari‘ah support the overthrow of
an elected president of an Islamic party who came to power after fair
elections?” Erdogan’s assumption of the Saudi regime’s upholding Islam
and Shari‘ah was based on false premises. How can a monarchical regime
that has never allowed the people to have a say in how their affairs are
governed be described as “upholding Islam”? Not surprisingly, Turkish
media, both pro-government and secular, have been full of stories
denouncing the Saudi and Persian Gulf monarchies’ support for the coup,
as the “collaborators’ evil alliance.”

While Saud al-Faisal, who
suffers from Parkinson’s disease, did not respond directly to Erdogan’s
rhetorical question, he replied with an announcement on August 19 that
if the US and European Union (EU) were to cut off aid to Egypt, the
Saudi regime would make up the shortfall. The question is, why is the
Saudi regime so desperate to prop up a brutal dictatorship, one
moreover, responsible for overthrowing a democratically elected
government in Egypt? Mursi’s problem, as far as the Saudis are
concerned, was precisely this: he was democratically elected and
represented a party, al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon (Muslim Brotherhood) that
stood to challenge the Saudi model as representative of the Muslim
world. This point was even noted by David Hearst in The Guardian
newspaper. The Saudis, uncouthed bedouins from the desert, have no
intellectual credentials. The Ikhwan’s ranks are filled with highly
qualified individuals that are able to present a credible choice to
Muslims even if some of their approaches are deeply flawed (such as
assuming that they can work within the system to establish an Islamic
state). For the Saudis the Iranian challenge was bad enough but some
Muslims could be turned against Iran by playing up the sectarian card.
How does one convince Muslims not to follow the “Sunni” Ikhwan model?

For
the Saudis, the choice was simple: the Ikhwan had to be removed from
power regardless of the number of lives lost. The Saudis were extremely
nervous when Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February 2011. King
‘Abdullah had publicly chastised Obama for not saving Mubarak because it
left the Saudis dangerously exposed. Based on that experience, the
Saudis decided to not rely too much on the Americans and fend for
themselves. Whenever the Americans can help, the Saudis would gladly
accept such help, but if there are differences with the Americans, the
Saudis would go it alone.

It is unrealistic to accept that the US
and the Saudis are on opposite sides in the Egyptian crisis. The major
difference is one of style. In this case, the Americans are playing it
safe while the Saudis are out in front.

The Saudi policy is not
without risks. By alienating the Ikhwan, they may arouse their
supporters’ anger both at home and abroad. This has already happened.
There have been rallies in many countries against the military coup. In
Saudi Arabia, the social media has gone viral in support of Mursi. A
group of 56 ‘ulama issued a statement on August 8 denouncing the coup
calling it “unquestionably a military coup and an unlawful and illicit
criminal act.” This was a direct challenge to the position adopted by
the king. The Imam of al-Masjid al-Nabawi in his Jumu‘ah Khutbah
denounced not only the coup but also attacked the king for supporting
it. These are unprecedented developments.

What has been the
response of the Saudis? It has responded to the campaign on social media
by sacking a Kuwaiti TV preacher, Tariq al-Suwaidan, who admitted to
having links with the Brotherhood. He has more than 1.9 million Twitter
followers but was told by Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, whose media group
owns several TV channels, that there was no place for those with
“deviant thoughts” at al-Risalah channel.

Hitherto, the Saudi
regime had relied on the support of the ‘ulama to seek legitimacy and
silence critics. The regime appears to have opened too many fronts
simultaneously and may have over-stretched itself. Internally, there is
great discontent against the regime despite spending its billions of
dollars to buy the people’s loyalty. The fact that there are at least
30,000 political prisoners in the kingdom points to the scale of
internal opposition.

The regime is apparently working on the
assumption that the coup has come to stay and it is a safe bet to back
the military. This may not work out. If the Ikhwan can maintain pressure
through street protests, the army can be forced to back down. There is
also the possibility of turning the rank and file against the officers
that issue orders to kill innocent people. A tipping point may be
reached if too many civilians are killed.

There are other
critical points also. The Saudi plan in Syria is not working according
to script. Ahmed Jabra, the newly appointed head of the Syrian National
Coalition (SNC) who has strong Saudi links admitted to Reuters that when
the rebels captured a military base in Aleppo, they discovered crates
full of Saudi weapons sent to the regime. They were stunned by Saudi
duplicity. It appears the Saudi regime is hedging its bets in Syria
because the rebels have not been successful in their assigned task. The
Saudis would be very happy if some Syrian general, in the manner of
General al-Sisi, were to overthrow al-Asad and grab power.

Policy,
however, cannot be formulated on pious hopes. The Saudis might discover
that they have chewed more than they can swallow. By getting so
directly involved in numerous places — Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and now
Egypt and taking on regional players as well as their foreign masters —
they may end up losing everything. The global Islamic movement must
formulate serious plans of getting rid of the House of Saud so that the
Haramayn, the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah, are freed from
their clutches. Most, if not all the problems of the Ummah would then be
resolved fairly quickly.